Hannity Doubles Down On Using 1990 Breitbart Video To Make Racial Attacks On Obama

Sean Hannity's race-based attacks on President Obama – over a hug he gave to a “radical” Harvard law professor in 1990 – has been widely ridiculed, including a devastating send up by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. Hannity's own colleague, Geraldo Rivera, called it a “sign of desperation.” But segregation-supporting Hannity isn't giving up on his efforts. In fact, last night, he spent most of his Fox News show doubling (or was it tripling?) down on his efforts to “prove” President Obama is a racist.

Although Hannity camouflages his attacks by purporting to focus on Obama's “radical” associates, throughout this segment, he repeatedly makes a racial context and prompts his guest to make racial attacks.

Showing 24 reactions

Bill, your citation makes no sense. Are you equating your posts with Jon Stewart’s editorial? He was clearly angry about the way he was publicly attacked – and particularly how people tried to either threaten his life or terrorize him into shutting up. It’s totally understandable why anyone would be angry about having their life threatened.

In your case, however, you simply expressed anger over your unhappiness both with the current President and with posters here who do not accept your assumptions as truths. Nobody said you couldn’t state your opinions, and nobody threatened your life.

Bill, all your talk about “anger” is pretty funny coming from a rightie. The RW relies on drumming up anger among their supporters in order to keep them emotionally hooked. Anger and fear. And no one knows this better than Fox News.

Bill, you are demonstrating the exact problem we’ve been trying to point out to you: “PLEASE…I already know the answer” is an example of you making an assumption that is simply not grounded in anything other than your own feelings about the topic.

You put up a blog filled with your assumptions about various talking points discussed by Sean Hannity and then you presume that nobody here might actually know about the truth that belies those talking points. For example, your commentary about Bill Ayers and the beginning of Barack Obama’s career assumes that the two men worked “closely” for years, when in fact they barely knew each other. You attempt to make the case that Sean Hannity has also tried – that somehow Bill Ayers was an integral part of the beginning of Obama’s political career, rather than one in a large number of local Chicago educators and community members who supported Obama for local office, and whom Obama visited during a campaign swing where he went to many living rooms in a single day.

The point of this thread is that Sean Hannity’s personal attacks on Obama, particularly as relates to a popular Harvard professor, reflect not any issue with Obama’s “associations” but instead Hannity’s desperate attempt to smear the President. Repeating Hannity’s talking points about this will not make those talking points true statements, and you have been unable to make any case for them, either here or on your blog.

“Youâre correct that I was trying to get a reaction from you â specifically, I was trying to get you to be clearer and less emotional in your posts.” Why? So you can try and dissect more. Or, did you want to actually hear another side of the story? Those are rhetorical…PLEASE…I already know the answer.

Bill, it’s interesting that you wrote such a long post while criticizing my writing. You then made a series of assumptions about me without basis.

Then you insulted Saul Alinsky – it’s interesting that you did that in light of his popularity with Tea Party Republicans (who use his recommendations under the name “Rules for Patriots”), as well as the admiration expressed for his work by William F. Buckley. Did you actually read any of Alinsky’s writings, or did you just assume what a right wing pundit said about him was true?

You may feel that I haven’t “said anything interesting or provocative to the contrary of anything I have said”, but the readers here can see that I have challenged the basis of your assumptions and called you on your false statements here. I’ve also challenged the idea of coming on a website and angrily insulting people there.

You’re correct that I was trying to get a reaction from you – specifically, I was trying to get you to be clearer and less emotional in your posts. I’m sorry that I have not succeeded.

Since you like to type so much, I will keep the happiness coming to you. I know you will again respond with a long winded, Alinsky style, politically correct post……..Your a progressive. I believe that to be a politically correct word for communist. We will have nothing in common. I will make this post a little longer, for it is my final one. Saul Alinsky was a communist, and a radical. You sound exactly like him, and his followers. I apologize for my tone earlier, you may not be aware that you do it. Alinsky was a community organizer, which he believed was the key to seizing power, and implementing socialist/communists ideas.(don’t trust me…find out for yourself, try google) From the book…Rules for Radicals “The organizer knows the real action is in the reaction of the opposition.” — You haven’t broke any new ground, or said anything interesting and provocative to the contrary of anything I have said…Your posts, were just to get a reaction from me, which you characterize as anger. Then you dissect my post. Your dissection becomes the narrative. That’s what I was trying to point out, in A LOT less words, I’m sorry It didn’t come off that way. Maybe someday we will have traded shoes, and walked miles in them. Until then, good luck, and God bless.
more at….http://thevetting.blogspot.com

Bill, I’m even more confused by your latest post. What are you talking about? You seem to be saying something about indoctrination, but of what and for whom?

Andrew Breitbart absolutely made a career out of smearing people. He did so repeatedly and angrily, even after he had been shown to be out of line. The one time he actually had something was when he decided to publicize the obscene photos sent by Anthony Weiner. The other cases were debunked, and one of them is about to lead to a major problem for his estate when they settle the lawsuit.

I also need to ask you not to call other people here names or to throw invective about. It’s another sign of that anger that we talked to you about before. It might help to count to ten before writing such posts, either in this thread or in the many others available here.

last post…because you can lead a horse to water but….anyway….It doesn’t shock me in any way that a socialist is confused, or doesn’t understand. Thats what indoctrination will do. BTW, Breitbart didn’t smear anyone, he just posted videos of that hate they are spewing. No use in replying, because Im not. Yakki – "unhinged-liberal’ and ‘fish’, you hit the nail on the head!

Bill, I am confused by your posting. It sounds as though you are trying to insult me in some way by referring to a play about Saul Alinsky. I’m honestly not sure what the socialism reference is about, nor do I understand the statement “until it takes the same fate as the rest”. Can you please clarify? And how does this relate to Andrew Breitbart’s attempts to smear President Obama and two professors?

wow kevin, what a great post, and without ‘insulting’ anyone, that is the best love song to Alinksy, I have seen. Great work and may the socialist heartbeat continue, until it takes the same fate as the rest…..good day.

Bill, I do hope you will be able to calm yourself when next you post. One does not need to be personally acquainted with you to see how angry you are – angry that Obama is the President, angry that people aren’t just taking Andrew Breitbart at his word, angry that not everyone believes what is said on Fox News. We can see this from the profanity in your post, from the all caps usage (which is perceived as shouting when done in posts and blogs), and from of the stranger turns of phrase in your posts.

And it’s okay for you to be angry. I just don’t believe that it gives you a solid bedrock on which to build your case. And as I tried to point out to you before, it leads you to make insults about other people that only detract from your ability to make a cogent argument. You asked me to cite examples. Okay, how about referring to posters here as “bed wetters” or referring to media sources with whom you disagree as the “damn media?” Or how about repeatedly saying that people that disagree with you are being “spoon fed”? I do hope that when you are able to compose yourself a bit more, you’ll see and understand that these are unfortunate statements, and that you may find it in your heart to apologize for them.

Now, as far as Professor Ogletree’s classes, your postings do not constitute evidence that there is some conspiracy to “hide” President Obama’s 1990 appearance at the rally to support Professor Bell. The actual footage of Professor Ogletree shows him teaching his class. The isolated clip shown by the guys from Breitbart’s website would have you believe that somehow this footage was “hidden” away under lock and key. But the reality is that Frontline included the footage, including that hug, including audio of then-student Barack Obama’s remarks. Have you actually watched the Frontline special? I have. You can easily hear the remarks, and you can see what was happening. And there’s nothing sinister about it at all. Unless you believe that free speech is somehow sinister.

Professor Bell’s record as an educator has been available for public examination for years. It is sad to see that Andrew Breitbart’s last attempt at fame for himself was intended to slander a man who himself had just passed away a few months ago, and who dedicated his life to teaching people.

It’s also sad to see people depending on someone like Andrew Breitbart to tell them “the truth” about politics without knowing that their source had been roundly discredited and humiliated on multiple occasions. The one story he seems to have been able to get right was the footage of the obscene sexting done by Rep. Anthony Weiner. Pretty much everything else was debunked, and the eventual result of that will be a humiliating settlement that will drain what estate Breitbart currently has for his family.

I do hope you will find other sources for your information, and that you’ll be able to open yourself to other points of view that are beyond what you may find on Fox News. But you will of course need to let go of whatever anger you have about the man who is President and the people who may disagree with him.

kevin….quit assuming you know me…I am not angry at all, if I was you would have heard or seen me get upset about this. I actually think it is comical, and you helped drive that nail home. I watched the entire seminar when he ‘joked’ about hiding video…would you like me to post that? I can…and he is not joking…he is describing Obama meteoric climb from obscurity, and thats why he ‘hid’ video.

I garan-damn-tee ya I did more research than anyone else here, who just swallows another spoon fed bite from the MSM.

I haven’t insulted anyone…please site that!

and please look again, everything I linked to IS RADICAL.

They say its a joke…you believe them, they say Bell was just a professor….you believe them…they say the video has been out since 2008…you believe them (the video was out…minus audio, minus hug)

Bill, I actually did watch many of the clips of Professor Ogletree. Did you?

Your “research” appears to be looking at YouTube clips and stuff on Breitbart’s website. Not sure how that constitutes research. Your clips show a Professor at work in his classroom, responding to his students and challenging them to go beyond the conclusions they are making. And their conclusions are not particularly radical ones.

It’s clear that you’re a little angry and upset about this election, but being angry will not help you analyze this material. It seems to only help you come up with unfortunate insults about people you don’t know and haven’t met.

I saw Professor’s Ogletree’s statements and it’s quite obvious that he’s joking with his students. The footage he’s saying he “hid” is material that was openly presented in 2008, and not only on PBS. Breitbart’s attempt to make it look like Ogletree was trying to “hide” it is just another example of the selective and deceptive editing that will cost Breitbart’s estate millions of dollars when they inevitably settle the Shirley Sherrod defamation lawsuit.

If you’re going to think for yourself, you’ll need to come up with something more thorough and studied than a series of clips that appear to be cobbled from Breitbart and the like. You appear to have assumed that whatever Breitbart and Hannity say about this was true. You should be very careful about such assumptions. They have resulted in Hannity making some outrageous statements that even he could not stand by and have caused Breitbart to be discredited, humiliated and will eventually cost his estate a significant amount of money.

You’re completely entitled to dislike this President and to vote for Mitt Romney when he gets the GOP nomination. But you’re not entitled to your own facts about Obama, no matter what Hannity and Breitbart have told you. Try to think independently of those guys and Limbaugh and you’ll be surprised how much you’ll learn.

They make little sense, because I am not spoon feeding you bed wetters. Do you know Ogletree? Did you watch the whole lecture? Or do you just believe the damn media that said it was a ‘joke’. Did you like the other jokes on my site…reasonable man? Why because you see a black man talking good! OMG did you listen to the words…no you didn’t because someone, somewhere told you…"nothin to see hear’..well I think for myself.

Bill, your comments make very little sense. And your link to videos of Charles Ogletree’s classes only shows him to be a fairly reasonable man teaching a class and listening to various points of view in the classroom.

And yes, Ogletree was joking with his class about this “hidden” video of Obama the student praising and hugging Derrick Bell in 1990.

Hannity’s clear intent is to make Obama out to be a black radical of some kind, even though the evidence doesn’t show anything like that. One can only imagine that Hannity is frustrated due to his inability to make any of these charges against Obama stick, and also due to the clear weakness of the GOP 2012 presidential candidate slate. Since he has nowhere to go in comparing Obama to these guys, all he can think to do is attack Obama and hope people agree with him. Unfortunately for his opinion, this approach isn’t working so well, is it?

We will start with the ones who are convicts and ex-convicts: Bernie Kerik, Robert Allen Stanford, Ollie North, neo-Nazi Hal Turner, etc.

His Atlanta business deal with Fortis Capital that went sour. An ugly court fight it was.

Who can forget Hannocchio’s admiration for the hateful Mr. Antonio? He’s a piece of work.

Second Amendment Leah of Alabama. Hannocchio had no problem associating with this broad. Another piece of work.

Hannocchio has no problem calling racist Pat Buchanan a brother. Of course, these two have so much in common. And we know what that is.

Some of Hannocchio’s good friends, like Pat Buchanan, have been associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, formerly known as the White Citizens Council in the deep south. This group fought for segregation in southern schools.

This Damien of the airwaves has a dark side. If his audience knew what he has done, most of them would flee from him.

Sean Hannity’s not just an idiot- he’s done. The people boycotting Rush want him gone next, they put him as #2 for people they want off their air, should this get shows cancelled. The order is: Rush, Sean, Beck, Michael Savage.

If Fox News gets Boycotted, he’s still #2- the most women are offended by Megyn Kelly’s “I got mine!” hypocrisy in her attacks on women, they want her gone even before Bill and Sean. But hey- at least Hannity finally beat his hated rival at something!

Though I think getting boycotted into cancellation first isn’t something to brag about.